CHEUNG CHI-FUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

CACC001294/1977

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
	1977 No. 1294
	(Cariminal)

 

BETWEEN
	CHEUNG Chi-fung	1st Appellant
	FONG Pui-kei	2nd Appellant
	LEUNG Kwok-hon	3rd Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 8th March 1978.

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

Huggins, J.A.:

1. These Appellants were jointly charged on one count of robbery. The first and third were jointly charged on a second charge of robbery. The second Accused was charged with handling goods stolen in that second robbery. The third Appellant was also charged with an assault on a police officer committed just after the first robbery, with the false imprisonment and the robbery of the occupants of a motor-car while he was escaping from the first robbery and with the unlawful possession of a blank cartridge pistol which was the pistol used in both the robberies and which was found in his possession at the time of his arrest.

2. The two main robberies were serious robberies carried out by a gang armed with this pistol with a knife and with a hammer which were used to terrorise the people in the two shops concerned. Property to a substantial value was stolen on each occasion. We agree with Mr. Alderdice that a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for the first robbery was a proper sentence standing alone. These were mature Defendants, all of whom had previous convictions. Although only one of them had the pistol, the presence of that pistol must have been known to all of them, but we take into account the fact that the pistol was not capable of discharging a missile. What does concern us is the aggregate of the sentences imposed in this case, and we have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances it would have been proper to impose a sentence on the first count of five years' imprisonment. We see no reason to interfere with the sentence of two years' imprisonment consecutive imposed on the first Appellant for the second robbery, or with the one year's imprisonment consecutive imposed on the second Appellant for handling stolen goods.

3. As to the third Appellant we wish to observe that in our opinion it is normally proper to impose a consecutive sentence and not a concurrent sentence for an assault on a police officer committed at the time of arrest, but we do not propose to interfere with the concurrent sentence imposed in this case. With regard to the totality of the sentences imposed upon the third Appellant we think it was proper that the sentences for the false imprisonment and the robbery of the occupants of the car should be concurrent between themselves. We do not propose to interfere with the two years' imprisonment which was imposed for those two offences consecutively to the sentences on the first count. Once again we think that the two years consecutive for the second main robbery was proper, but, since the weapon which was in his possession at the time of his arrest was the same weapon as that which had been used in the two main robberies, we agree with Mr. Alderdice that it is not necessary to make the sentence of one year's imprisonment on Count 5 consecutive and we alter it to a concurrent sentence.

4. The aggregates of the sentences on these Appellants will therefore be as follows: the first Appellant, seven years' imprisonment; the second Appellant, six years' imprisonment; and on the third Appellant, nine years' imprisonment. The appeals are allowed to that extent.

  

8th March 1978.

 

Representation: